Articles

New Brazilian Floristic List

Highlights Conservation
Challenges

Rafaela C. Forzza, José Fernando A. Baumgratz, Carlos Eduardo M. Bicudo, Dora A. L. Canhos,
Anibal A. Carvalho Jr., Marcus A. Nadruz Coelho, Andrea F. Costa, Denise P. Costa, Michael G.
Hopkins, Paula M. Leitman, Lucia G. Lohmann, Eimear Nic Lughadha, Leonor Costa Maia,
Gustavo Martinelli, Mariângela Menezes, Marli Pires Morim, Ariane Luna Peixoto, José R. Pirani,
Jefferson Prado, Luciano P. Queiroz, Sidnei Souza, Vinicius Castro Souza, João R. Stehmann,
Lana S. Sylvestre, Bruno M. T. Walter, and Daniela C. Zappi

A comprehensive new inventory of Brazilian plants and fungi was published just in time to meet a 2010 Convention on Biological Diversity tar-
get and offers important insights into this biodiversity’s global significance. Brazil is the home to the world’s richest flora (40,989 species; 18,932
endemic) and includes two of the hottest hotspots: Mata Atlântica (19,355 species) and Cerrado (12,669 species). Although the total number of
known species is one-third lower than previous estimates, the absolute number of endemic vascular plant species is higher than was previously
estimated, and the proportion of endemism (56%) is the highest in the Neotropics. This compilation serves not merely to quantify the scale of
the challenge faced in conserving Brazil’s unique flora but also serves as a key resource to direct action and monitor progress. Similar efforts by
other megadiverse countries are urgently required if the 2020 targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Global Strategy for Plant
Conservation are to be attained.

Keywords: biodiversity, biogeography, botany, conservation, mycology

B iodiversity hotspots (Mittermeier et al. 1999, Myers 

et al. 2000) have captured the imagination of the gen-
eral public and policymakers alike and have been a major
focus of discussions about conservation priorities over the
past decade. Estimates of total plant diversity and of species
endemism underpin both hotspot circumscription and the
recognition of megadiverse countries and regions (Mitter-
meier et al. 1997, 2004). Therefore, the accuracy with which
hotspots can be circumscribed and ranked is limited by the
reliability of the diversity data available for each area.
Brazil, long acknowledged as a world leader in floristic
diversity, encompasses two biodiversity hotspots—the Cer-
rado and the Atlantic rainforest (Mata Atlântica)—and
ranks high among the most-diverse countries (Mittermeier
et al. 1997, 2004). However, published estimates of described
diversity are widely divergent because the country lacked an
authoritative inventory of plant, algal, and fungal species.
Here, we present analyses of new results from a landmark
project that indicate that Brazil has fewer described species
of plants, algae, and fungi but higher levels of endemism
than were previously reported.
Documenting the flora of Brazil
An authoritative census of the Brazilian flora with sufficient
scientific credibility to guide conservation planning has long
been needed. The last complete inventory of Brazilian plants
was the detailed and comprehensive Flora brasiliensis, pub-
lished between 1833 and 1906, in which 19,958 species of
plant, algae, and fungi were reported for Brazil (von Martius
1833, Urban 1906). Over the following century, thousands
of new species and new distribution records for Brazil were
published, but no subsequent comprehensive survey of the
Brazilian flora was completed. Reviews of existing knowl-
edge include estimates of the number of described species of
plants and fungi ranging from 60,700 to 70,210 (Lewinsohn
and Prado 2005). The most recent figures cited for vascular
plants are 56,108 species, with 12,400 (22%) endemic (Giam
et al. 2010).
Target  1 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation
(GSPC), adopted by the parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity in 2002, called for a working list of all
known plant species by 2010 (CBD 2010a). GSPC Target 1
stimulated diverse responses at the global and national

BioScience 62: 39–45. ISSN 0006-3568, electronic ISSN 1525-3244. © 2012 by American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights reserved. Request
permission to photocopy or reproduce article content at the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions Web site at www.ucpressjournals.com/
reprintinfo.asp. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.8

www.biosciencemag.org January 2012 / Vol. 62 No. 1 • BioScience 39

Articles

levels, among the most ambitious of which was a Brazilian
initiative begun only in late 2008 to assemble and review
the existing data on Brazilian plants, algae, and fungi and to
deliver a complete list of known species by 2010. Here, we
present headline statistics from that work and analyze them
in national and global contexts.
Taxonomic data and procedures
The taxonomic scope of the project included vascular plants,
bryophytes, algae, and fungi, although it was accepted that
coverage for the latter two groups would be patchy because
of the uneven distribution of sampling effort and taxo-
nomic expertise. A database and a Web interface to support
the project were developed in partnership with the Centro
de Referência em Informação Ambiental. Data sets were
obtained from published sources (Gradstein and da Costa
2003, Hennen et  al. 2005, Barbosa et  al. 2006, Procopiak
et  al. 2006, Queiroz et  al. 2006, Cáceres 2007, de Oliveira
et  al. 2007, Mendonça et  al. 2008, Daly and Silveira 2009,
Stehmann et al. 2009), as well as from existing Web resources
(Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2009, IPNI 2009) and from
some unpublished sources provided by specialists. All of the
data sets were fed into the system and integrated, totaling
roughly 90,000 name citations. All of the original sources are
acknowledged in the system.
Taxonomic subsets of the combined data set were made
available to invited specialists for review and correction
through an online Web interface over a nine-month period
ending 31 December 2009. The specialists were invited to
update the taxonomic status of each name (accepted or syn-
onym) and to cite voucher specimens or literature to indicate
the distribution of each accepted species across political
units (the 27 states of Brazil) and major biomes, following
Table 1. Brazilian biomes according to Veloso and colleagues (1991) and IBGE (2010).
Biome Description and location
Amazônia Found in northern and central-western
(Amazon rainforest) Brazil, and ­comprising a great variety of well beyond Brazil through to Bolivia, Peru,
vegetation forms, of which the flooded
and tall terra firma lowland forest pre- Guianas (Kress et al. 1998)
dominate (Ter Steege et al. 2003)
Cerrado Predominantly a grassland with woody
(central Brazilian elements and comprising a diverse
savanna) ­mosaic of vegetations known as campos ern Paraguay and Bolivia (Ab’Sáber 1983,
rupestres (Giulietti and Pirani 1988)
Mata Atlântica A narrow strip of forest from sea level 13% of the Brazilian territory, and 95% of
(Atlantic rainforest) to the eastern highlands of Brazil,
becoming broader toward the south
Caatinga Xerophilous thorny forest and scrub
of the drylands of northeastern Brazil Brazilian (Andrade-Lima 1981)
Pampa Grasslands from southern Brazil
Pantanal Periodically flooded grasslands by
the rivers Paraná and Paraguay in
central-western Brazil
the domínios concept sensu Veloso and colleagues (1991) and
Ab’Sáber (2003) with territorial coverage from IBGE (2010).
Although each of these biomes hosts a wide range of vegeta-
tion types, physiognomies, habitats, and microhabitats, they
can be characterized in broad terms as outlined in table  1
and illustrated in figure 1. To check species distribution and
locate suitable vouchers, the specialists used the speciesLink
(2010) network, which contains online herbarium data.
The compiled data were reviewed and refined online by a
network of 413 taxonomists during 2009. This remarkably
comprehensive and rapid collaboration was possible only
through advances in information and communication tech-
nology and increased Internet speed, which allowed many
people to work remotely and simultaneously. The list was
then edited and was released online in May 2010.
Summary statistics were extracted from the database
by major taxonomic group and by biome. Current spe-
cies diversity and endemism totals for other megadiverse
countries were obtained from recent literature and personal
correspondence.
Diversity of Brazilian plants and fungi
The resulting list, published as The Brazilian Catalogue of
Plants and Fungi (Forzza et  al. 2010a) documents 40,989
species of Brazilian algae, land plants, and fungi, of which
18,932 (46.2%) are endemic to the country (table  2). The
species totals are lower than recently published estimates by
32%–42% (Lewinsohn and Prado 2005). We did not find
comparable endemism estimates for the groups encom-
passed in our study as a whole. Coverage of algae and fungi
in our data set was less consistent and less comprehensive
than for land plants (bryophytes and vascular plants). Fur-
thermore, the totals for all land plants were also sparsely
noted in the literature; there-
fore, we focused further com-
parisons on the vascular plant
Coverage data. The number of vascular
plants totaled 32,364 species,
49.3% of the Brazilian territory, extending 21% below the lowest previ-
Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, and the ous estimate for known Bra-
zilian vascular plant species
and 43% below the highest
23.9% of the Brazilian territory, with mar-
ginal continuous extensions in northeast- previous estimate (see table 2
for absolute numbers and
Mendonça et al. 2008)
sources).
Although our reported
it occurs within Brazil (Stehmann et al.
2009), extending marginally into Argentina number of known vascular
and Uruguay, of which only 12% of the plant species is lower than that
original area still remains (Ribeiro et al.
2009) previously reported, placed in
9.9% of the Brazilian territory, exclusively the context of other recently
published national estimates
2.1% of the Brazilian territory, found also (table  3), it shows Brazil as
in Argentina, ­Uruguay, and eastern Para-
guay (Boldrini 2009)
clearly the most diverse
country in the world. Its
1.8 % of the Brazilian territory, continuing
into Bolivia, ­Paraguay, and Argentina (Pott documented vascular plant
and Pott 1997) diversity is greater than what

40 BioScience • January 2012 / Vol. 62 No. 1 www.biosciencemag.org

 Articles

might be predicted by comparison

with other megadiverse countries,
even allowing for Brazil’s exception-
ally large area (figure  2). Because the
number of herbarium specimens of
Brazilian plants collected to date is
far from sufficient to adequately rep-
resent the native plant diversity as a
whole (Sobral and Stehmann, 2009)
and major initiatives are underway
to increase the size and availability of
the collections (CNPq 2010, DCBio
2010, GPI 2011), the total number of
vascular plant species for Brazil can be
expected to rise significantly over the
coming years. Of critical importance
in this process is the recognition by the
Brazilian government that increased
taxonomic capacity to accelerate the
analysis of materials in Brazilian col-
lections is necessary to provide up-to-
date scientific information on national
biodiversity (DCBio 2010, p. 35).

Vascular plant endemism

Figure 1. Map of Brazilian biomes showing the total number of species (top In total, 18,082 vascular plant species
number), the number of endemic species (middle number), and the percentage (56%) have been recorded as endemic
endemism for each biome. to Brazil. This proportion of ende-
mism is higher than that reported for

Table 2. Synthesis of the species estimates for Brazil.

Number of species in von Number of
Number of Lowest Highest Martius (1833) as a endemic species
species listed previous previous Number of species percentage of the number listed in Forzza
in von Martius ­estimate ­estimate listed in Forzza and of species in Forzza and and colleagues
Species group (1833) for Brazil for Brazil colleagues (2010a) colleagues (2010a) (2010a)

All groups 19,958 63,456a 73,956a 40,989 48.7 18,932

Fungi 177 12,914a 13,914a 3,608 4.9 523
Algae 80 7,527 a
10,527 a
3,496 2.3 52
Plants (terrestrial
and algae) 19,781 50,542a 60,042a 37,381 52.9 18,409
Land plants 19,701 43,015a 49,515a 33,885 58.1 18,357
Bryophytes 268 1,650b 3,200c 1,521 17.6 275
Vascular Plants 19,433 41,215a 56,415a 32,364 60.0 18,082
Ferns and lycophytes 576 1,200a 1,400a 1,176 49.0 450
Seed plants 18,857 35,664 d
45,015a 31,188 60.5 17,632
Gymnosperms 11 14e 16e 26 42.3 2
Angiosperms 18,846 30,000 e
45,000 e
31,162 60.5 17,630

a
Lewinsohn and Prado 2005.
b
Gradstein and da Costa 2003.
c
Giulietti et al. 2005.
d
Govaerts 2001.
e
Shepherd 2005.

www.biosciencemag.org January 2012 / Vol. 62 No. 1 • BioScience 41

 Articles
Table 3. Vascular plant species diversity and area data for 16 megadiverse any other Neotropical country (table  3)
countries (adapted from Giam et al. 2010). and greatly in excess of previously
Area (in square Total number Number of Percentage ­published endemism estimates for Bra-
Country kilometers) of species endemic species of endemism zilian vascular plants, which ranged from
22% (Giam et  al. 2010) to 29%–37%
Brazil 8,514,880 32,364 18,082 56
­(Mittermeier et al. 1997 and MMA 1998
Australia 7,741,220 15,638 14,182 91 for higher plants only). Giulietti and
China 9,598,088 29,650 14,013 47 colleagues (2005) reported higher lev-
els of endemism (66%) for a selection
Indonesia 1,904,570 29,375 13,750 47
of dicotyledonous families, although
South Africa 1,219,090 20,407 13,265 65 they cited an unpublished list that indi-
Papua New Guinea 462,840 14,522 13,250 91 cated only 28% endemism in Brazilian­
Mexico 1,964,380 25,036 11,250 45 dicotyledons.
In the global context, Brazil has more
Colombia 1,141,750 24,500 10,500 43
endemic vascular plant species than
Madagascar 587,040 9753 7250 74 any other country (table  3) and now
India 3,287,260 17,832 6113 34 ranks eighth in the world for percentage
Peru 1,285,220 18,055 5676 31 endemism, exceeded only by countries
with essentially island floras (i.e., Aus-
Ecuador 283,560 17,517 4179 24
tralia and Papua New Guinea, both 91%;
United States 9,632,030 18,737 4036 22 Madagascar, 74%), by other countries
Malaysia 329,740 15,250 3600 24 or administrative regions consisting of
Philippines 300,000 8931 3500 39 islands or archipelagos (New Caledonia,
Venezuela 912,050 15,820 2964 19
88%; New Zealand, 81%; French Poly­
nesia, 58%), and by South Africa (65%)—
Note: The species totals for Brazil are updated to reflect those reported in the present article. the only other continental country with
Those for South Africa follow Von Staden and colleagues (2009), and those for Colombia follow flora with levels of endemism over 50%.
Bernal (2009). Given the large expanses of Brazil still
awaiting detailed botanical exploration
and the relatively narrow distribution of
Species area curve the majority of recently described spe-
for vascular plant species cies, levels of endemism in the known Brazilian vascular
in megadiverse countries plant flora can be expected to rise in the coming years.
4.6

Brazil Biome comparisons

4.5
Indonesia
China For the six biomes recognized (table  1, figure  1), the total
Log number of species

4.4 Colombia Mexico number of species, the total number of endemic species, and
the proportion of endemism in each biome are presented in
South Africa
4.3 table 4 and mapped on figure 1.
Ecuador Peru United States Brazil’s Atlantic forest, already recognized as one of the
India
4.2 Malaysia Venezuela Australia
world’s hottest hotspots (Mittermeier et al. 1999, Myers et al.
Papua 2000, Brummitt and Nic Lughadha 2003) has 19,355 species
New Guinea
4.1 in our list, including 40% of all known Brazilian endemics
(tables 1 and 4, figure 1).
4.0 The Cerrado, also a hotspot (Mittermeier et  al. 2004),
Madagascar
Phillipines although not among the very hottest (Brummitt and Nic
3.9 Lughadha 2003), is confirmed as home to the richest
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
savanna flora in the world, with 12,669 species (4215 Brazil-
Log area (km2)
ian endemics). Although neither the Atlantic rainforest nor
Figure 2. A log–log plot of the numbers of vascular plant the Cerrado biomes are exclusive to Brazil (see table 1), the
species for megadiverse countries shows that Brazil’s fact that the great majority of their extent is within Brazil-
vascular plant diversity is exceptional, even when its ian boundaries explains their large contribution of endemic
greater area is taken into account. The data were log species.
transformed to permit a meaningful comparison of In contrast, the Amazon extends far beyond Brazilian
diversity among countries, despite their widely differing national boundaries, encompassing large areas of Bolivia,
areas. Abbreviation: km2, square kilometers. Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, and the Guianas, and,

42 BioScience • January 2012 / Vol. 62 No. 1 www.biosciencemag.org

 Articles

Table 4. Species of fungi, epicontinental algae, and land plants distributed by Brazilian biomes.
Biome
Species group Species statistic Atlantic forest Amazon Cerrado Caatinga Pampa Pantanal

Fungi Number of species 1664 519 291 734 1 28

Number of endemic 100 35 7 56 0 0
­species
Percentage of species 6 1.3 12 7.6 0 0
endemic to this biome
Algae Number of species 1545 444 308 44 505 130
Number of endemic 22 8 0 0 6 0
­species
Percentage of species 1.4 0 2.6 0 1.2 0
endemic to this biome
Bryophytes Number of species 1333 561 433 93 107 179
Number of endemic 189 24 9 2 2 1
­species
Percentage of species 14.2 1.6 5.5 2.2 1.9 0.6
endemic to this biome
Ferns and lycophytes Number of species 834 428 245 25 5 18
Number of endemic 321 31 48 2 0 1
­species
Percentage of species 38.5 11.2 12.7 8 0 5.6
endemic to this biome
Seed plants Number of species 13,979 11,365 11,392 4322 1346 855
Number of endemic 7014 1948 4151 744 76 46
­species
Percentage of species 50.2 36.5 17.1 17.2 5.6 5.2
endemic to this biome
All groups total Number of species 19,355 13,375 12,669 5218 1964 1240
Number of endemic 7646 2046 4215 804 84 48
­species
Percentage of species 39.5 15.4 33.3 15.4 4.3 3.9
endemic to this biome
Percentage of all Brazilian 40.4 10.9 22.3 4.2 0.4 0.2
endemic species confined
to this biome

Note: The endemism totals for each biome do not add up to the total number of endemic species for Brazil because some Brazilian endemic species
­occur in more than one biome and because biome data are lacking for some species.

unsurprisingly, of the 13,375 species documented for the
Brazilian Amazon, only 2046 are endemic to Brazil. These
biome comparisons, made using species totals for all groups
included in our list (land plants, algae, and fungi), reflect
undersampling, particularly of the latter groups; the angio-
sperm number for the Brazilian Amazon (11,349 species) is
more comparable to that for the Atlantic rainforest (13,972).
Furthermore, the Amazon is known to have a relatively low
density of preserved collections of plants and fungi, and
these are skewed toward a handful of geographical centers.
Schulman and colleagues (2007) suggested that, for vascu-
lar plants, as much as 43% of the area of the Amazon may
be effectively uncollected. Increased collecting activity is
urgently needed and expected to considerably augment the
number of species recorded for this biome (Milliken et  al.
2011).
Maintaining and using the list
The Brazilian Catalogue of Plants and Fungi (Forzza et  al.
2010a) represents a snapshot of our current understanding
of Brazilian plant diversity at a critically important time.
With a new species being added to the inventory each work-
ing day, on average (Sobral and Stehmann 2009), the hard-
copy version will soon be outdated, but the Rio de Janeiro
Botanical Garden will coordinate continuous updating of the
Web version (Forzza et al. 2010b) and yearly online releases.
Maintenance of the list will require continued support for
and recognition of the network of taxonomic specialists
who created it. Enhancements to the coverage of fungi and
microalgae should be prioritized and will require investment
in taxonomic capacity for these neglected groups.
This landmark achievement by the Brazilian scientific
community not only provides a robust new baseline for

www.biosciencemag.org January 2012 / Vol. 62 No. 1 • BioScience 43

Articles
taxonomic and floristic work, but it is also a key tool for
policymakers and land managers seeking to direct and
implement conservation actions on a scale sufficient to
safeguard the world’s most-important flora. It will serve as
an inventory of resources to be assessed for conservation
status and prioritized for conservation action, which will
aid in avoiding duplication of effort and accidental over-
sight (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
2009). South Africa provides a clear example of how a
national list of plant species can form the foundation for
a range of practical information products and can estab-
lish a baseline for more applied socioeconomic initiatives
(Crouch and Smith 2011). In the Brazilian context, the list’s
relevance is illustrated by the fact that more than two-thirds
of plant species considered by expert botanists as threatened
in 2005 were deemed to lack sufficient reliable information
to be officially recognized as conservation priorities (DCBio
2010, p. 39). The existence of the list will also enable infor-
mation on Brazilian plants to be organized in a logical and
retrievable way, linked to information about the properties
of these species and their roles in ecosystems, which will
make these more readily accessible to land managers. Prac-
tical needs, such as biome-specific manuals of species suit-
able for use in habitat restoration can be addressed using
subsets of the list.
For those megadiverse countries that still lack a com-
prehensive plant list, concentrated and concerted efforts to
develop one are urgently needed if the new and more ambi-
tious GSPC 2020 targets are to be attained (CBD 2010b).
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the Ministério do
Meio Ambiente and the Centro Nacional de Conservação
da Flora for financial support for the project, the National
Council for Scientific and Technological Development for
productivity grants, and the Bentham and Moxon Trust
for a grant to RCF. Neil Brummitt, Tom Meagher, William
Milliken and three anonymous reviewers provided valuable
input in various phases of the manuscript.
References cited
Ab’Sáber AN. 1983. O domínio dos cerrados: Introdução ao conhecimento.
Revista Servidor Público 3: 41–55.
Ab’Sáber A[N]. 2003. Os Domínios de Natureza no Brasil: Potencialidades
Paisagísticas. Ateliê.
Andrade-Lima D. 1981. The caatinga dominium. Revista Brasileira de
Botânica 4: 149–153.
Barbosa MRV, Sothers C, Mayo S, Gamarra-Rojas C, Mesquita AC. 2006.
Checklist das Plantas do Nordeste Brasileiro: Angiospermas e Gymnos-
permas. Ministério de Ciência e Tecnologia.
Bernal R. 2009. A elaboração do Catálogo de Plantas da Colômbia. In: Sim-
pósio Metas da Convenção da Biodiversidade para 2010: Construindo a
Lista de Espécies do Brasil. Paper presented at the 60th Brazilian Botani-
cal Conference; 28 June–3 July 2009, Feira de Santana, Brazil.
Boldrini II. 2009. A flora dos campos do Rio Grande do Sul. Pages 63–77
in Pillar VDP, Muller SC, Castilhos ZMS, Jacques AVA, eds. Campos
Sulinos: Conservação e Uso Sustentável da Biodiversidade. Ministério
do Meio Ambiente.
44 BioScience • January 2012 / Vol. 62 No. 1 www.biosciencemag.org
Brummitt N, Nic Lughadha E. 2003. Biodiversity: Where’s hot and where’s
not. Conservation Biology 17: 1442–1448.
Cáceres MES. 2007. Corticolous Crustose and Microfoliose Lichens of
Northeastern Brazil, 1st ed. IHW.
[CBD] Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010a. COP 5 Decision V/10:
Global strategy for plant conservation. CBD. (1 May 2011; www.cbd.int/
decision/cop/?id=7152)
———. 2010b. COP 10 Decision X/17: Consolidated update of the Global
Strategy for Plant Conservation 2011–2020. CBD. (1 May 2011; www.
cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12283)
[CNPq] Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
(National Council for Scientific and Technological Development).
2010. Edital MCT/CNPq/FNDCT/MEC/CAPES/FAP’s No. 56/2010—
REFLORA. CNPq. (1 May 2010; www.cnpq.br/editais/ct/2010/056.htm)
Crouch NR, Smith GF. 2011. Informing and influencing the interface
between biodiversity science and biodiversity policy in South Africa.
Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 166: 301–309.
Daly DC, Silveira M. 2009. Primeiro Catálogo da Flora do Acre, Brasil [First
Catalogue of the Flora of Acre, Brazil]. EDUFAC.
[DCBio] Office of the National Program for Biodiversity Conservation,
Ministry of the Environment, Brazil. 2010. Fourth National Report
to  the Convention of Biological Diversity, Brazil. Ministry of the
­Environment.
De Oliveira EC, Horta PA, da Silva BNT. 2007. Algae Maris Brasilis: A Cata-
logue of Brazilian Marine Algae. (12 March 2009; www.algaemarisbrasilis.
ccb.ufsc.br/algaemarisbrasilis.html)
Forzza RC, et  al. 2010a. Catálogo das Plantas e Fungos do Brasil, 2 vols.
Andrea Jakobsson Estúdio and Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden.
Forzza RC, et  al. 2010b. Introdução. Lista de Espécies da Flora do Brasil.
Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden. (30 May 2010; http://floradobrasil.jbrj.
gov.br/2010)
Giam X, Bradshaw CJA, Tan HTW, Sodhi NS. 2010. Future habitat loss and
the conservation of plant biodiversity. Biological Conservation 143:
1594–1602.
Giulietti AM, Pirani JR. 1988. Patterns of geographic distribution of
some plant species from the Espinhaço range, Minas Gerais and Bahia.
Pages 39–69 in Heyer WR, Vanzolini PE, eds. Proceedings of a Work-
shop on Neotropical Distribution Patterns. Academia Brasileira de
Ciências.
Giulietti AM, Harley RM, Queiroz LP, Wanderley MGL, Van Den Berg C.
2005. Biodiversidade e conservação das plantas no Brasil. Megadiver-
sidade 1: 52–61.
Govaerts R. 2001. How many species of seed plants are there? Taxon 50:
1085–1090.
[GPI] Global Plants Initiative 2011. Global Plants Initiative: Resources for
the Digitization of Herbarium Specimens. GPI. (2 November 2011;
http://gpi.myspecies.info)
Gradstein SR, Costa DP. 2003. The Hepaticae and Anthocerotae of Brazil.
Memoirs of the New York Botanical Garden 87. New York Botanical
Garden Press.
Hennen JF, Figueiredo MB, de Carvalho AA Jr, Hennen PG. 2005. Catalogue
of the Species of Plant Rust Fungi (Uredinales) of Brazil. Rio de Janeiro
Botanical Garden. (12 March 2009; http://www.jbrj.gov.br/publica/
uredinales/Brazil_Catalogue1drevisado.pdf )
[IBGE] Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. 2010. Mapa de biomas.
IBGE. (2 November 2011; ftp://geoftp.ibge.gov.br/mapas/tematicos/
mapas_murais/biomas.pdf )
[IPNI] The International Plant Names Index. 2009. The International Plant
Names Index (IPNI). (12 March 2009; www.ipni.org)
Kress WJ, et  al. 1998. Amazonian biodiversity: Assessing conservation
priorities with taxonomic data. Biodiversity and Conservation 7:
1577–1587.
Lewinsohn TL, Prado PI. 2005. Quantas espécies há no Brasil? Megadiver-
sidade 1: 36–42.
Mendonça RC, Felfili JM, Walter BMT, Silva Júnior MC, Rezende AV,
Filgueiras TS, Nogueira PE, Fagg CW. 2008. Flora vascular do bioma
Cerrado: Checklist com 12.356 espécies. Pages 421–1279 in Sano SM,

Almeida SP, Ribeiro JF, eds. Cerrado: Ecologia e Flora, vol. 2. Embrapa
Cerrados, Embrapa Informação Tecnológica.
Milliken W, Zappi D[C], Sasaki D, Hopkins M, Pennington RT. 2011.
Amazon vegetation: How much don’t we know and how much does it
matter? Kew Bulletin 65: 691–709.
Mittermeier RA, Robles Gil P, Mittermeier CG. 1997. Megadiversity:
Earth’s Biologically Wealthiest Nations. CEMEX and Agrupación Sierra
­Madre.
———. 1999. Hotspots: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endan-
gered Terrestrial Ecoregions. CEMEX, Conservation International, and
­Agrupación Sierra Madre.
Mittermeier RA, Robles Gil P, Hoffmann M, Pilgrim J, Brooks T,
­Mittermeier CG, Lamoreux J, da Fonseca GAB. 2004. Hotspots revisited.
CEMEX and Agrupación Sierra Madre.
[MMA] Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 1998. Primeiro relatório nacional
para a Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica—Brasil [First National
Report for the Convention on Biological Diversity—Brazil]. MMA.
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J. 2000.
Biodiversity hotpots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.
Pott A, Pott VJ. 1997. Plants of Pantanal. Embrapa.
Procopiak LK, Fernandes LF, Moreira-Filho H. 2006. Diatomáceas
­(Bacillariophyta) marinhas e estuarinas do Paraná, Sul do Brasil: Lista de
espécies com ênfase em espécies nocivas. Biota Neotropica 6(3). (12 March
2009; http://www.biotaneotropica.org.br/v6n3/pt/abstract?inventory+
bn02306032006)
Queiroz LP, Conceição A, Giulietti AM. 2006. Nordeste semi-árido: Carac-
terização geral e lista das fanerógamas. Pages 15–364 in Giulietti AM,
Queiroz LP, eds. Diversidade e caracterização das fanerógamas do semi-
árido brasileiro, vol. 1. Associação Plantas do Nordeste.
Ribeiro MC, Metzger JP, Martensen AC, Ponzoni FJ, Hirota MM. 2009. The
Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How much is left, and how is the remaining
forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biological Conserva-
tion 142: 1144–1153.
Schulman L, Toivonen T, Ruokolainen K. 2007. Analysing botanical collect-
ing effort in Amazonia and correcting for it in species range estimation.
Journal of Biogeography 34: 1388–1399.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2009. The Conven-
tion on Biological Diversity Plant Conservation Report: A Review of
Progress in Implementing the Global Strategy of Plant Conservation.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Shepherd GJ. 2005. Plantas terrestres. Pages 145–192 in Lewinsohn TM,
ed. Avaliação do Estado do Conhecimento da Biodiversidade Brasileira.
Serie Biodiversidade, vol. 2. Ministério do Meio Ambiente.
Sobral M, Stehmann JR. 2009. An analysis of new angiosperm species dis-
coveries in Brazil (1990–2006). Taxon 58: 227–232.
SpeciesLink. 2010. The Project speciesLink. SpeciesLink. (10 May 2010;
http://splink.cria.org.br/index?&setlang=en)
www.biosciencemag.org January 2012 / Vol. 62 No. 1 • BioScience 45
Articles
Stehmann JR, Forzza RC, Salino A, Sobral M, da Costa DP, Kamino LHY.
2009. Plantas da Floresta Atlântica. Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden.
Ter Steege H, et  al. 2003. A spatial model of tree alpha-diversity and
density for the Amazon Region. Biodiversity and Conservation 12:
2255–2277.
Urban I. 1906. Index familiarum. Pages 239–268 in von Martius CPF, ed.
Pars Prior: Algae, Lichenes, Hepaticae. Flora Brasiliensis 1. Cottae.
Veloso HP, Rangel Filho ALR, Lima JCA. 1991. Classificação da Vegetação
Brasileira, Adaptada a um Sistema Universal. Instituto Brasileiro de
Geografia e Estatística.
Von Martius CPF, ed. 1833. Pars Prior: Algæ, Lichenes, Hepaticæ. Flora
Brasiliensis 1. Cottae.
Von Staden L, Raimondo D, Foden W. 2009. Introduction. Pages 1–5 in
Raimondo D, Von Staden L, Foden W, Victor JE, Helme NA, Turner
RC, Kamundi DA, Manyama PA, eds. Red List of South African Plants
2009. Strelitzia 25.
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 2009. World Checklist of Selected Plant Fami-
lies. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. (12 March 2009; http://apps.kew.org/
wcsp/prepareChecklist.do?checklist=selected_families%40%40306021120
112009952)
Rafaela C. Forzza (rafaela@jbjr.gov.br), José Fernando A. Baumgratz, Anibal
A. de Carvalho Jr., Marcus Antonio N. Coelho, Denise P. da Costa, Paula M.
Leitman, Gustavo Martinelli, Marli Pires Morim, and Ariane Luna Peixoto
are affiliated with the Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden, in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil. Carlos Eduardo M. Bicudo and Jefferson Prado are affiliated with the
Botanical Institute in São Paulo, Brazil. Dora A. L. Canhos and Sidnei Souza
are affiliated with the Centro de Referência em Informação Ambiental in São
Paulo, Brazil. Andrea F. Costa, Mariângela Menezes, and Lana S. Sylvestre
are affiliated with the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil. Michael G. Hopkins is affiliated with the National Institute of Ama-
zonian Research, in Manaus, Brazil. Lucia G. Lohmann, José R. Pirani, and
Vinicius Castro Souza are affiliated with the University of São Paulo, in São
Paulo, Brazil. Eimear Nic Lughadha is affiliated with the Herbarium, Library,
Art and Archives Directorate of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, in Richmond,
United Kingdom. Leonor Costa Maia is affiliated with the Federal University
of Pernambuco, in Pernambuco, Brazil. Luciano P. Queiroz is affiliated with
the State University of Feira de Santana, in Feira de Santana, Brazil. João R.
Stehmann is affiliated with the Federal University of Minas Gerais, in Belo
Horizonte, Brazil. Bruno M.  T. Walter is affiliated with Embrapa Recursos
Genéticos e Biotecnologia’s Centro Nacional de Pesquisas de Recursos Gené-
ticos e Biotecnologia, in Brasília, Brazil. Daniela C. Zappi is affiliated with
the Herbarium, Library, Art and Archives Directorate of the Royal Botanic
Gardens, Kew, in Richmond, United Kingdom, and with Gardens by the Bay,
in Singapore.